Pendulum’s swing, that’s what they do and for some CHL teams it brought new life and promise to their organizations, but now the pendulum is swinging the other way.
Obviously, some hockey minds within the game predicted a “Wild West” approach after the NCAA rule change and it looked like the consensus choice amongst hockey players and their families was the CHL route. It wasn’t a mass exodus, but there was definitely a ripple effect, but now the pendulum appears to being swinging the other way.
You can talk about the weight behind the pendulum and the gravity of the situation, but players, their families, and agents/advisors are making decisions and when it comes the game of hockey, choice has always and will always continue to be controversial.
How the hell can choice be so controversial? Well, what we have witnessed with players making choices and believing in what’s best for them and their trajectory and development isn’t new territory for those in the hockey world, but perhaps it will be a wakeup call for some teams and organizations when it comes to how they operate, what they offer or promise as far as player development is concerned.
The pendulum swing might catch some teams and their officials off guard because now hockey promises or long-term commitments can be broken more readily which could possibly send a message that some CHL and or NCAA teams don’t want sent.
Everyone in the game knows development and opportunity is a gamechanger for any young prospect, so why are players and their families deciding to leave or alter their course or path now?
The hockey world hates perception and speculation, every executive in the game strives to deal with certainty and guarantees when it comes to just about everything especially player personnel, but all of that goes by the wayside if and when the pendulum swings.
You see from a CHL perspective if and when a player decides to leave their current environment more questions arise which only adds to the intrigue, perception and possible speculation on why.
How can CHL teams retain or guarantee their players see out their commitments? The answer to that one is pretty clear in this day and age, they can’t. How can they recoup the loss or losses? Is there a transfer fee, if so, how much is it? Are more CHL teams going to play hardball when it comes to players wanting to leave?
That in itself coupled with all the speculation on why they would decide to leave is enough to freak a shit ton of hockey people and executives out.
With every swing of the pendulum there might be an element of clarity and transparency on one side while the other becomes jaded and blurred.
If some players decide to leave it might completely throw off the team’s plan or cycle which could cost them dearly on many fronts.
Teams and organizations that promise the world and don’t deliver might see players decide to take a different path. What about the school money? What happens to that if they decide to leave? How is that going to work? There are more questions than answers right now when it comes to the pendulum and how it continues to swing from the NCAA to the CHL.
Terminology around the game is important we all get that, but if there were two words that came out of the pandemic that need to go away from people’s vernacular it’s: pivot and pieces. The CHL and NCAA probably don’t want to hear those words either. They don’t want to have to pivot. They don’t want to have to deal with that piece or this piece or the development piece or schooling piece or the money piece, they just want the players to commit, but that’s not how the pendulum works.
FDS Sports Blog 